commit to user i
4. Treatment
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Meeting 3
Meeting 4 May 28
th,
2011 June 1
st
, 2011 June 4
th
, 2011 June 8
th
, 2011 Classroom
Classroom Classroom
Classroom
5. Post-test June
11
th
, 2011 Classroom
6. Interviewing the students after
treatment June 11
th
, 2011 Classroom
Table 4 Schedule of cycle 1 Materials
Meeting Material Meeting 1
Reading text “Yao Ming”
Meeting 2 Reading text “Esperanto as a Second Language”
Meeting 3 Reading text “Mystery on Mount Everest”
Meeting 4 Reading text “Danger: Asteroid Ahead?”
2. Action
a. Sharing idea with collaborator
The subject of the research was the first year students of English Department of Unswagati that consist of 25 students. Reading
comprehension lecturer for this class was Mrs. Nunung Nurjannah, S.Pd., M.Hum. On Wednesday, 18
th
May 2011, the researcher and collaborator shared ideas about teaching reading. The collaborator said that students
were still low in comprehending the text because they were lazy to join reading comprehension subject and they thought that reading
comprehension subject was not interesting and made them bored.
Based on the result of interview with collaborator, the researcher proposed Cooperative Reading Groups CRG technique to the
collaborator to teach reading comprehension.
b. Pretest
commit to user i
A pre-test was conducted on Wednesday, May 25
th
2011. It was aimed to identify the student’s achievement in reading comprehension. Besides,
the result of pre-test also was used to determine the students in conducting the group. The materials of pre-test were the reading text for the first year
students of university. According to the result of pre-test, the score of the students in comprehending the text was low. The result of pre-test could
be described into the table of system of category below:
Table 5 Pre-test score category
Very Poor Poor
Fair Good
Very Good
Mean score
- 7 students
35 8 students
40 5 students
25 -
54.3 Fair Based on the result of pre-test, it could be categorized that there were
7 students 35 who were categorized into poor, 8 students 40 were categorized into fair, 5 students 25 were categorized into good, and
none of them categorized into very poor and very good. In order to know the students ability in answering types of question, the researcher analyzed
the result of pre-test as follows.
Table 6 Pre-test Question Category
R = the
number of students
who gave the right answer
The table shows that there were 13 students who could identify main idea, 9 students could find the pronoun reference, 11 students recognize
word meaning in context, 8 students could find detail information from the text, 10 students could answer inference question. Based on this data, it
could be concluded that the students still need to improve their reading comprehension.
Questions Category R
Identify main idea of the text. 13 students 65
Find the pronoun reference. 9 students 45
Recognize word meaning in context. 11 students
55 Find detail information from the text.
8 students 40 Make inferences.
10 students 55
commit to user i
In this research, the researcher also described the mean score of each indicator of pre-test as follows:
Table 7 Mean score of each indicator of pre-test
B
ase d
on the table above, it could be seen that the mean score of main idea indicator
was 66.8. Mean score of pronoun reference indicator was 46.5. Mean score of word meaning indicator was 55. Mean score of detail information
indicator was 41.8. Mean score of inference indicator was 50.9. Based on the result of pre-test, the students reading comprehension was still low.
c. Treatment
